ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
The JR that was thrown out with distain by the judge or the one pending appeal that delays any possible attempt at reconcilliation?
ACL – jointly owned by Coventry City Council and the Alan Higgs charity – has made the application to the High Court for administration over £1.3m in arrears, racked up after the club stopped paying rent, arguing they were being vastly overcharged. A judge is due to look at the case on Friday.
This could force out Mayfair-based hedge fund owner Sisu, which has ploughed more than £40m into the club and had hoped to acquire a stake in the Ricoh.
Potential American investors have been to the Ricoh Arena on two occasions, one being last week’s Colchester game, and understood to have been given a tour by ACL interim chief executive Jacky Isaac.
However, although ACL have seized the initiative to force a change of ownership, Sisu could turn the tables as the apparent end game plays out.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/american-tycoon-eyes-sky-blues-3013764
They have met with PHIV on numerous occasions since. And I'm sure sisu have complained about this in the JR.
What if sisu's JR claims are true and ACL were always in on it?
We'll see... but why was the original JR thrown out with such a clear and damning conclusion by the judge?
Yes the law is often an ass- as proven re the legal process whereby a company can be 're sold' to the owners that placed it where it was in the first place with no penalty... but do you really think the JR will be overturned?
I honestly don't know, but even if it gets thrown out again it doesn't mean it never happened.
Didn't mean the thank....
Meant to say...
Oh FFS
I honestly don't know, but even if it gets thrown out again it doesn't mean it never happened.
Didn't mean the thank....
Meant to say...
Oh FFS
So if it gets thrown out it might have happened.. if it gets upheld it did happen- so guilty until proven innocent then.. surely not. Come on Stu whilst you and I are never likely to agree on this whole SISU/ACL thing(which I accept).. surely you must conclude that British justice is the bastion upon which we all place our faith and trust- yes sometimes its found wanting... but in the main?
In the main yes, but interesting stats regarding the crown prosecution service.
Over 88,000 criminal cases – one in ten – that were charged were later dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2011/12 due to a lack of evidence or because prosecution was deemed not to be in the public interest. This cost the taxpayer over £25 million, wasted valuable police time and had an extremely detrimental impact on the victims of crime.
In the Public Interest explores the role and responsibility of the CPS. It says the prosecution service should retain its powers but calls for more transparency and accountability when it comes to measuring the organisation’s successes and failures.
New statistics contained within the report found:
The annual budget for the CPS amounts to over half a billion pounds yet it’s handling the smallest caseload of the past decade.
The official conviction rate masks deep failings in the CPS’ performance in court. When prosecutions reached trial, the CPS had successful outcomes in only 63% of Magistrates’ Court cases and in just over half of its Crown Court cases (55%).
In 2011, one third of cracked or ineffective trials in England and Wales were the result of the prosecution failing to offer evidence, not being ready, or a prosecution witness being absent
Of the 367,067 cases given to the CPS for pre-charge decisions, one in four were dropped, most frequently because of insufficient evidence. This feeds an undercurrent of mistrust between the police and the CPS which sometimes spills out into the media.
The report also suggests the need for a revised Public Interest Test that that accurately reflects the public’s view of when a prosecution should be dropped. In 2011, the CPS decided not to prosecute 109 out of the 139 suspects who broke into Fortnum & Mason during the student protests in London in 2011, on the grounds that they did not want to ‘criminalise’ the young people involved
Lack of evidence or not in the public interest does not mean that these 88k perpetrators didn't commit the crimes.
Wow.
Just Wow.
Talk about entrenched in a position. Now you're implying (if) the judicial review is thrown out it's because the entire legal system is lacking.
Dude, just accept when you're wrong.
Do your own statistics not prove that OSWKP was correct in his assertion, "in the main".In the main yes, but interesting stats regarding the crown prosecution service.
Over 88,000 criminal cases – one in ten – that were charged were later dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2011/12 due to a lack of evidence or because prosecution was deemed not to be in the public interest. This cost the taxpayer over £25 million, wasted valuable police time and had an extremely detrimental impact on the victims of crime.
In the Public Interest explores the role and responsibility of the CPS. It says the prosecution service should retain its powers but calls for more transparency and accountability when it comes to measuring the organisation’s successes and failures.
New statistics contained within the report found:
The annual budget for the CPS amounts to over half a billion pounds yet it’s handling the smallest caseload of the past decade.
The official conviction rate masks deep failings in the CPS’ performance in court. When prosecutions reached trial, the CPS had successful outcomes in only 63% of Magistrates’ Court cases and in just over half of its Crown Court cases (55%).
In 2011, one third of cracked or ineffective trials in England and Wales were the result of the prosecution failing to offer evidence, not being ready, or a prosecution witness being absent
Of the 367,067 cases given to the CPS for pre-charge decisions, one in four were dropped, most frequently because of insufficient evidence. This feeds an undercurrent of mistrust between the police and the CPS which sometimes spills out into the media.
The report also suggests the need for a revised Public Interest Test that that accurately reflects the public’s view of when a prosecution should be dropped. In 2011, the CPS decided not to prosecute 109 out of the 139 suspects who broke into Fortnum & Mason during the student protests in London in 2011, on the grounds that they did not want to ‘criminalise’ the young people involved
Lack of evidence or not in the public interest does not mean that these 88k perpetrators didn't commit the crimes.
Do your own statistics not prove that OSWKP was correct in his assertion, "in the main".
Jesus wept. Ever decreasing circles. The Sisu apologists will drag anything up. They're completely bonkers.
you cannot accuse anyone of being an apologist with the amount of tripe you spout. Your love of stadium management companies knows no boundsJesus wept. Ever decreasing circles. The Sisu apologists will drag anything up. They're completely bonkers.
ACL have been very quiet the last couple of months. Why are they not showing publicly that they are bothered about getting CCFC back? They could at least be in the press saying publicly they are still willing to talk, or better still, making a public offer to CCFC. All I ever see are sarcastic remarks from PWKH on here, which comes across a little unprofessional - particularly after the baloon incident. To be honest the lack of intent ACL are showing is making me think I may have been wrong about Sisu and I am honestly considering going to watch a game.
Maybe PWKH can clear this up and state once and for all that they would still want CCFC back. Why not make some kind of offer of renting the stadium with an option to buy, but with a certain portion of the annual rent paid taken off the purchase price so they don't see it as dead money (a bit like the rent to buy schemes you see these days). Surely there is some middle ground that can be reached.
Those 20 points we should have?
Coventry City - Sisu - Northampton.
was this after they were going to liquidate us anyway
Baginton....... said they 'may' be forced into liquidation. Didn't say they'd actually do it, its called business, calling ones bluff.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which part of SISU ARE liquidating CCFC ltd...DON'T you understand?
Just remind me who we played on Sunday?
I'm not happy at this level !! Surely you have aspirations?
You can settle for beating some small town team but I want more than this.
I want to play in a Premier League Stadium, be on match of the day, and compete in the FA Cup.
It isn't going to happen after 5 years in Northampton and in a small stadium in Rugby.
But each to his own !!
Ah, here we go again. Having a go at someone else for their lack of "aspiration". Says the man who's just going to stop supporting the club. We are where we are.
Ah, here we go again. Having a go at someone else for their lack of "aspiration". Says the man who's just going to stop supporting the club. We are where we are.
Isn't that what every fan wants for there team?
Isn't that what every fan wants for there team?
Having a go at who ?
Someone said they were happy with SISU and the good football we were playing.
Just telling him that I am not happy at this level. Are you?
I will only stop 46 years of support as soon as plans for the L1 stadium are confirmed.
Once we settle for this level I'm out.
Yes but since 2000 we have been in decline. We are light years away from where we were and fans cannot accept teams like Swansea Blackpool and hull are bigger better and financially much more viable.
The need for a 32,000 stadium is folly - if we were still in highfiekd road would people be objecting its not big enough? No they wouldn't.
So how did the likes of Qpr and Blackpool ever get promoted with their "league one" stadiums?
QPR = Money
Blackpool = Luck + great manager.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?